1. Sewachand Mahto, S/o Late Jugal Mahto; 2. Bishnu Mahto, S/o late Jugal Mahto v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Land Reforms Department Government of
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.6501 of 2017 1. Sewachand Mahto, S/o Late Jugal Mahto; 2. Bishnu Mahto, S/o late Jugal Mahto, Above both resident of village – Gariya, P.O. – Madhupur, P.S. – Madhupur, District – Deoghar (Jharkhand) … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Land Reforms Department Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. – Dhurwa, P.S. – Jagannathpur, District – Ranchi – 834004 3. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division at Dumka, P.O. – Dumka, P.S. – Dumka(T), District – Dumka 4. The Charge Officer II, Dumka, P.O. – Dumka, P.S. – Dumka (T), District – Dumka 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O. – Deoghar, P.S. – Deoghar (T), District – Deoghar 6. The land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar, P.O. – Deoghar, P.S. – Deoghar (T), District – Deoghar 7. Dashrath Mahto, S/o Late Munsi Mahto, Resident of village – Garia, P.O. – Madhupur, P.S. – Madhupur, District – Deoghar 8. Bachan Yadav, S/o Late Mahabir Mahto, Resident of village – Garia, P.O. – Madhupur, P.S. – Madhupur, District – Deoghar … … Respondents --- CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners For the Respondents For the State
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. S.N. Das, Adv. : Mr. Radha Krishan Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Amitesh Kr. Geasen, Advocate --- 08/10.07.2023 2. Learned counsels for the parties are present. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “(i) For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/writs: or order / orders; or direction/direction for quashing the order dated 12.10.2017 (Annexure – 4) passed by the respondent no.3 (The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division at Dumka) whereby and whereunder it has been issued without power, authority and jurisdiction, illegally set – aside the order 15.05.2012 (Annexure – 3) passed by the respondent no.4 (The Charge Officer, II, Dumka) whereby and whereunder the above said court had found the existence of Jhunwa Mahatwain Daughter of Dhano Mahto, wife of Jugal Mahto and thereby her name was insurted during Khanapuri in regard to the above said property situated in Mauza Dhamna No.219, JB No.6. (ii) For the issuance of a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs; or, order/orders; or direction/directions for commanding upon the respondents (particularly respondent no.6) to stop payment of Full Award Money amounting to Rs.86,92,374/- arrived at vide L.A. Case No.13/14-15 dated 22.09.2017 (Annexure – 6) passed by the respondent no.6 (The Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar) for Mauza Dhamna (Madhupur Bus Stand) in favour of Jhunwa Mahtawain and Dashrath Mahto to be conveyed to the respondent no.7 and 8, who are 2 already holders of ½ shares in accordance with terms and conditions of settlement of land; iii) for any other reliefs to which the petitioners is legally entitled to in law and equity. And During the pendency of the instant writ application, the order dated 12.10.2017 (Annexure- 4) passed by the respondent no.3 (The Commissioner, Santha Pargana Division at Dumka) and the order dated 22.09.2017 (Annexure – 6) vide Full Award Money amounting to Rs.86,92,374/- arrived at vide L.A. Case No.13/14-15 dated 22.09.2017 for Mauza Dhamna (Madhupur Bus Stand) in favour of Jhunwa Mahtawain and Dashrath Mahto to be conveyed to the respondent no.7 and 8 who are already holders of ½ share in accordance with terms and conditions of settlement of land passed by respondent no.6 (the land acquisition officer, Deoghar), may kindly be stayed. And / or Your Lordships may be pleased to issue such other order/orders or direction/ directions as may appear just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire property involved in the present case has been ultimately acquired for the purposes of construction of bus stand. 4. It is submitted that the petitioners are sons of Late Jhunwa Mahtawain and Late Jugal Mahto who claim to have inherited the properties through Jhunwa Mahtawain (daughter of Dhano Mahto and Amiya Mahtawain). Amiya Mahtawain was the second wife of Dhano Mahto. The private respondents herein i.e., respondent nos.7 and 8 belong to other branch of the family. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners’ grandfather namely Dhano Mahto had performed two marriages. First wife was Bhukhli Mahtawain, who died issueless and 2nd wife was Amiya Mahtawain who was blessed with a daughter namely Jhunwa Mahtawain. The recorded tenant before Gantzer’s settlement was ancestor of Dhano Mahto and subsequently his descendants became the owner of the land. Thus, it is the case of the petitioners that the entire property inherited by Dhano Mahto ultimately devolved in the name of Jhunwa Mahtawain (daughter of Dhano Mahto and Amiya Mahtawain) and therefore, in the name of the present petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the petitioners inherited the ancestral property after the death of their mother Jhunwa Mahtawain (daughter of Dhano Mahto and 3 Amiya Mahtawain) on 08.11.2015 during the pendency of RMR Case No. 174 of 2012-13. 6. Learned counsel submits that as per the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner in RMR Case No.174 of 2012- 2013, the only ground to deny the status of Jhunwa Mahtawain as daughter of Dhano Mahato is that the name of another lady namely Bhukhli Mahtawain was recorded in the purcha as the widow of Dhano Mahto and name of her mother namely, Amiya Mahtawain was not recorded and therefore adverse inference has been drawn by the learned Commissioner that Jhunwa Mahtawain was not the daughter of Dhano Mahto. 7. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order having been passed on the aforesaid sole basis i.e., entry in parcha, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He submits that the entire property involved in the present case has already been acquired and the parties are fighting for compensation and it is submitted that compensation has not been paid to any one of them. He has also submitted that the award money amounting to Rs.86,92,374/- has already been quantified in LA Case No.13 of 2014-2015 dated 22.09.2017 passed by Land Acquisition officer, Deoghar. The learned counsel submits that there are other branches of the family who claim compensation for the acquired land. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners would be at best entitled to only half share of the compensation of the acquired property involved in this case. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that such disputed question of title and status of Jhunwa Mahtawain / Amiya Mahtawain, cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. He has submitted that whatever material was available before the learned Commissioner, the impugned order has been passed on the basis of such material. He has also submitted that in case of any dispute regarding the status in the family or in connection with apportionment of the compensation amount, the appropriate proceeding is through the competent court of civil jurisdiction. He has also submitted that the appropriate order to that effect can be 4 passed by respondent no.6 and such dispute regarding status of a person is required to be referred to the concerned court by the Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar so that the dispute amongst the parties is ultimately resolved and the due compensation is disbursed to the parties who are found entitled for the same. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent no.7 has submitted that so far, the claim of private respondents is concerned, it is to the extent of 50% of the compensation amount to which there is no dispute. The point of dispute before the Court would be as to whether the private respondents would be entitled for the entire compensation or they will be entitled only for half share of the compensation. He also does not dispute that such issue regarding the status of parties in the family cannot be resolved through writ jurisdiction and appropriate forum would be competent court of civil jurisdiction. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also the undisputed position that the property involved in this case has already been acquired, but the petitioners and private respondents are fighting in relation to apportionment of the compensation amount and for that purpose, the status of Jhunwa Mahtawain as well as Amiya Mahtawain is required to be determined. The impugned order has been passed on the sole ground that in purcha, the name of Amiya Mahtawain is not appearing as widow of Dhano Mahato and it is claimed by the petitioners that Amiya Mahtawain was the second wife of Dhano Mahato. 12. This Court is of the considered view that such disputed questions of title cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction and unless the status of the present petitioners is decided by competent court of civil jurisdiction, the compensation amount also cannot be disbursed in their favour. Essentially the matter relates to dispute regarding apportionment of compensation between the petitioners and the private respondents. It is not in dispute that the matter regarding apportionment of compensation is to be decided by competent court of civil jurisdiction and the dispute regarding status of one or the 5 other person in the family is also required to be decided by the competent court of civil jurisdiction. 13. The legal status of Amiya Mahtawain vis-à-vis Dhano Mahto and consequently, the legal status of Jhunwa Mahtawain (daughter of Amiya Mahtawain) vis-à-vis Dhano Mahto, on the claim of compensation is required to be adjudicated. It is observed that the order passed by revenue authorities do not adjudicate upon claim of legal status of a person in the family and consequent upon the claim of compensation. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid dispute involved in this case cannot be resolved through writ jurisdiction and ultimately, the matter has to be decided by the competent court of civil jurisdiction. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioners as well as the private respondents to approach the Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar along with the writ records and a copy of this order. Upon appearance of the petitioners and also the private respondent nos.7 and 8, the Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar shall take appropriate steps so that the dispute in connection with apportionment of compensation / claim of any title in connection with the acquired land is ultimately referred to the competent court for adjudication. The disbursement of compensation will ultimately depend upon the adjudication by the competent court. It is further observed that the civil court shall decide the case in accordance with law and without being influenced by the impugned orders passed in the present case. 15. 16.
Decision
This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Saurav/ (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)